|
Drug Courts Work, but How? Preliminary Development of a Measure to Assess Drug Court Structure and Processes
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Blake Barrett, University of South Florida, bbarrett@fmhi.usf.edu
|
| Roger Boothroyd, University of South Florida, boothroy@fmhi.usf.edu
|
| M Scott Young, University of South Florida, syoung1@usf.edu
|
| Abstract:
Drug courts are specialty judicial programs designed to reduce criminal recidivism and substance abuse among offenders with substance use disorders. Drug courts operate through partnerships between the criminal justice and public health systems. The effectiveness of drug courts has been documented through numerous studies. The task remains now to determine their causal mechanisms.
This presentation will review an iterative measurement development process conducted to create a measure to assess drug court structures and practices. Participants consisted of drug court personnel and academic experts. Measurement development activities included: 1) a comprehensive review of the literature; 2) interviews with key stakeholders to inform item development; 3) expert reviews of the initial item pool; 4) pile sort activity and subsequent exploratory factor analyses to determine which items best represent measure sub-constructs; 5) cognitive interviews completed by key stakeholders; and 6) final revisions to the item pool based upon results from cognitive interviews.
|
|
Characteristics Associated With Loss-To-Follow Up in a Multi-site Federally Funded Evaluation of Jail Diversion Programs
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Annette Crisanti, University of New Mexico, acrisanti@salud.unm.edu
|
| Brian Case, Policy Research Associates Inc, bcase@prainc.com
|
| Henry Steadman, Policy Research Associates Inc, hsteadman@prainc.com
|
| Abstract:
Loss to follow-up is a significant problem in any evaluation, but even more so in criminal justice and mental health services research. The methodological issues resulting from high rates include selection bias and an inadequate sample size for data analysis. The purpose of our study was to examine what socio-demographic, clinical, legal or program level characteristics were associated with attrition. The study employed data from a multi-site evaluation of jail diversion programs. A self-report interview was conducted at baseline for 1,575 individuals. A 37% and 56% attrition rate was observed at the six month and 12 month follow-up, respectively. Our findings have several implications. For example, knowing which individuals are more likely to be lost to follow-up will allow evaluators to develop targeted sampling strategies (i.e., oversampling of those most likely to be lost to follow-up) and determine, in advance, who should be followed more closely in longitudinal prospective evaluation studies.
|
|
From Place-Based to Person-Centered: Lessons Being Learned From an Ongoing Process Evaluation of a Prisoner Reentry Initiative
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Robert Kahle, Kahle Research Solutions Inc, rwkahle@kahleresearch.com
|
| Abstract:
As a result of extremely high rates of incarceration, annually, nearly 650,000 men and women return to local communities after being incarcerated in federal or state prisons in the United States. More than two-thirds return to prison within three years of release. (Langan & Levin, 2002). This paper presents preliminary results from an ongoing process evaluation of a privately funded and non-profit (as opposed to governmental) organization operated reentry initiative in a high-crime neighborhood on the east side of Detroit, MI. Analysis of the fidelity of the program to the original model, characteristics of the ex-offender population being served, and lessons learned from funding source, program and case management perspectives are presented and discussed. Observations on the language of reentry conclude the paper.
Langan, P.A. & D.J. Levin. Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994. NCJ 193427. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002. bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf.
|
|
A Cost Study of Three Mental Health Courts
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Henry Steadman, Policy Research Associates Inc, hsteadman@prainc.com
|
| Lisa Callahan, Policy Research Associates Inc, lcallahan@prainc.com
|
| Thomas Mcguire, Harvard Medical School, mcguire@hcp.med.harvard.edu
|
| Pamela Clark Robbins, Policy Research Associates Inc, probbins@prainc.com
|
| Roumen Vesselinov, Queens College CUNY, vesselinov@stat.com
|
| Karli Keator, Policy Research Associates Inc, kkeator@prainc.co
|
| Abstract:
Mental health courts (MHCs) are a diversion program for persons with serious mental illness in the justice system. Over 280 MHCs currently exist across the U.S. Treatment courts are often viewed as a cost savings alternative to regular criminal justice processing, or treatment as usual (TAU). As part of the MacArthur Mental Health Court multi-site evaluation study, we collected criminal justice and behavioral health costs for 3 years pre- and post-target arrest for a MHC (n=311) and TAU (n-402) samples. This analysis compares the total, treatment, and criminal justice costs both between and among samples from pre to post. Overall costs increase for both the MHC and TAU samples from pre to post arrest with a surge in costs just prior to the target arrest. We examine subgroups to identify characteristics of high users of the criminal justice and behavioral health systems.
|
| | | |